SECURITY & PRIVACY
Palmprint Verification
for Controlling Access
to Shared Computing
Resources
You can build an effective palmprint verification system using a
combination of mostly off-the-shelf components and techniques.
A
ccess security is an important aspect
of pervasive computing systems. It
offers the system developer and end
users a certain degree of trust in the
use of shared computing resources.
Biometrics verification offers many advantages
over the username-plus-password approach for
access control. Users don’t have to memorize any
codes or passwords, and biometric systems are
more reliable because biometric characteristics
can’t easily be duplicated, lost, or stolen.
Researchers have studied such biometric char-
acteristics as faces, fingerprints, irises, voices, and
palmprints.1 Facial appearance
and features change with age.
Maylor K.H. Leung, A.C.M. Fong, Fingerprints can be affected by
and Siu Cheung Hui surface abrasions or otherwise
Nanyang Technological University compromised.2,3 Capturing iris
images is relatively difficult, and
iris scans can be intrusive.
Voices are susceptible to noise corruption and can
be easily copied and manipulated. Palmprints are
potentially a good choice for biometric applica-
tions because they’re invariant with a person, easy
to capture, and difficult to duplicate. They offer
greater security than fingerprints because palm
veins are more complex than finger veins. How-
ever, compared to other biometric characteristics,
they have perhaps seen less research (see the side-
bar on page 43 for more on palmprint biomet-
rics). This provides a big opportunity for advanc-
ing palmprint technology and applications.
40 PERVASIVE computing Published by the IEEE Computer Society ■ 1536-1268/07/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on August 05,2010 at 02:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
We’ve developed an effective prototype palm-
print verification system using a combination of
mostly off-the-shelf (and therefore tried and
tested) components and techniques. Such an
approach should make palmprint verification an
appealing proposition.
Palmprint verification
Figure 1 shows the system overview. The sys-
tem verifies palmprints in four stages: image
acquisition, palm positioning, feature extraction,
and palmprint matching.
Image acquisition
During image acquisition, the system captures
an image of the user’s hand via a camera and
stores it as a grayscale TIFF file. We use a general-
purpose digital camera (a Pulnix America TMC-
6). The image quality is acceptable for palmprint
verification, assuming that the background is
illuminated uniformly. This is reasonable, given
that lighting variations within such a small area
as a palm can be minimized.
Palm positioning
Normally, in the raw image, the palm’s loca-
tion and orientation aren’t fixed. To solve this
problem, the system must establish a coordinate
system so that all the palms are properly aligned
and normalized. Another problem is that the
raw image consists of the palm, fingers, wrist,
and some background. The system must trim
 Figure 1. The palmprint verification
system.
away the unwanted portions to reduce
the computation required in subsequent
processing. The palm-positioning stage
handles these tasks, ultimately produc-
ing a subimage. Figure 2 shows the four-
step process.
Boundary extraction and edge thinning.
To extract the boundaries, we use edge
detection (for a tutorial, see www.pages.
drexel.edu/~weg22/edge.html). Edge pix-
els should lie on regions with a sharp
gray-level transition. Edge detection in-
volves two steps:
1. Compute the gradient magnitude of
each pixel in the image using the set
of Sobel masks for detecting hori-
zontal, vertical, and diagonal edges.
2. Threshold the image on the basis of
gradient magnitude.
In step 1, the system performs convo-
lution of the raw image (see figure 2a)
with the Sobel kernels for each pixel.
This step selects each pixel’s strongest
response to the four different masks to
represent that pixel’s gradient magni-
tude. Step 2 uses adaptive thresholding
based on the computed gradient magni-
tudes. First, we omit 5 percent of the
highest computed gradient magnitudes
to avoid biasing by outlier values. Sec-
ond, for the remaining gradient magni-
tudes, using the highest value as refer-
ence Gr, we compute the threshold value
as T_Gradient = Gr  Ratio_Gradient,
where Ratio_Gradient is a predeter-
mined constant between 0 and 1. We set
Ratio_Gradient at 0.3. This relatively
low value avoids broken edges.
With this approach, the threshold
value will be low if the input image’s edge
response is weak, or it will be high if the
edge response is strong. After the system
computes the threshold value, it maps the
input image into a binary image, with
white pixels representing the edges and
black pixels representing the rest. The
OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2007
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on August 05,2010 at 02:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Register
Registered
model
Database
binary image isn’t immediately suitable
for extracting feature points. The system
first passes it to the edge-thinning sub-
stage to produce a refined edge image, to
facilitate boundary tracing.
For edge thinning, a morphological-
thinning algorithm4 removes selected
pixels from the binary image to reduce
all lines in the image to a single pixel
width. We calculate the thinned image
by first translating the structuring ele-
ment’s origin to each possible pixel posi-
tion in the original image. (A structuring
element defines the shape and form of
morphological operations.) We then
compare the structuring element’s pixel
pattern with the underlying part of the
image. At each position, if the pixel pat-
terns match, the image pixel underneath
the structuring element’s origin is set as
background. In other words, we remove
a redundant foreground pixel. If the struc-
turing element’s pixel pattern doesn’t
match, the corresponding pixel remains
unchanged. The thinned-edge image (see
figure 2b) makes the analysis of bound-
ary information much easier, which
Image acquisition
TIFF file (gray-scale)
Palm positioning
Gray-scale image
Feature extraction
Line edge map
Register or
verify?
Verify
Palmprint matching
Decision
helps to extract the feature points more
efficiently.
Feature-point location. To set up the co-
ordinate system, we require the locations
of three feature points. These key points
lie on the bottom of valleys between fin-
gers. By observing the boundary image’s
line pattern, we see that the bottom of a
valley is a short curve joining the edges of
adjacent fingers. The key points are best
represented as those curves’ midpoints.
To locate the midpoint, one method is
to first find the line (Lm) dividing the
interfinger space into halves. The inter-
section point between Lm and the bot-
tom curve of the valley is one of the
desired key points. Usually, the edges of
two adjacent fingers form a V-shape. We
can establish an angle by extending the
V-shaped edges until they intersect. To
find Lm, we calculate this angle’s bisec-
tor. Figure 2c illustrates this method.
Generally, directly locating the V-shaped
edges isn’t easy. To solve this problem, we
first find each finger’s parallel edges. Then,
for every two adjacent fingers, we select
PERVASIVE computing 41
 SECURITY & PRIVACY

Figure 2. Palm positioning: The

(a) initial image, (b) thinned edge image,
(c) located feature points, (d) coordinate
system, and (e) resulting subimage.

K3.The y-axis is perpendicular to the

x-axis and passes through K2. The inter-
(a) 1 (b) section of the two axes determines the
Boundary
extraction and Feature
coordinate system’s origin.
edge thinning 2 point With this coordinate system, we can
location create a rectangular cutting window out-
lining the subimage. We determine the
Lm
window’s location and size such that
most of the distinctive palmprint features
are in the window. That is, the window
must cover most of the prominent lines
3 in the palm’s inner area. Here are the rec-
Coordinate tangle’s specifications:
system
(d) establishment (c) 1. The rectangle’s sides are parallel to
the x-axis or y-axis.
Subimage
4
normalization
2. The rectangle is symmetric with
respect to the y-axis.
3. The distance between the x-axis
and the rectangle’s nearest side is
RefLength  0.25, where RefLength
is the distance between K1 and K3.
4. The rectangle’s sides have the length
(e)
of RefLength.

We can uniquely determine the rec-

an appropriate edge from each finger and
use those two edges to form a V-shaped
pair. This approach is feasible because
detecting parallel-line pairs is much easier
than detecting V-shaped line pairs directly.
So, locating the three key points takes
four steps:
1. Extract the straight lines. Find the
straight lines in the thresholded edge
image, and select the long ones that
could be finger edges.
2. Group the parallel lines. Group the
extracted long lines into parallel
pairs, each representing two edges
of a finger.
3. Group the V-shaped lines. Reorder
the parallel pairs, and group the lines
into V-shaped pairs, each represent-
ing the edges of two adjacent fingers.
4. Locate the key points. Form an angle
for each V-shaped pair, and calculate
each angle’s bisector. Find the inter-
section points between the bound-
aries of the interfinger valleys and
the bisectors. The intersecting points
represent the desired key points.
The nature of this algorithm imposes
two constraints on the input image. First,
background objects can’t contain paral-
lel-line pairs; these extra pairs would
confuse the system. Second, the input
image must contain sufficient lengths of
the fingers; otherwise, the system won’t
be able to identify the finger edges.
Establishment of the coordinate system.
We denote the three located key points as
K1, K2, and K3. The coordinate system
consists of two axes, x and y (see figure
2d). The x-axis passes through K1 and
tangle’s orientation, location, and size.
The window is invariant to shift and
rotation, which ensures that the system
extracts the same part of the palm, no
matter how the hand is positioned or ori-
ented in the input image.
Subimage normalization. Now, we cut
out a subimage containing the most sig-
nificant palmprint lines. Generally, we
need to rotate the image so that the rec-
tangle is aligned with the normal coordi-
nate system, with a horizontal x-axis and
a vertical y-axis. Next comes a simple
scaling operation to normalize the image
to a standard size (we chose 160  160
pixels). Figure 2e shows the results.
Feature extraction
During feature extraction, the system
extracts the palmprint’s line patterns from

42 PERVASIVE computing www.computer.org/pervasive

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on August 05,2010 at 02:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Related Work in Palmprint Biometrics

I n accordance with common usage, we define “palm” as the

human hand’s inner surface, extending from the base of the
fingers to the wrist. A palmprint is the line pattern on a palm. The
three most noticeable palmprint lines are the lifeline, head line,
and heart line. Six attributes make the palmprint lines on one
hand distinguishable from those on another: color, clarity, length,
position, continuity, and variation in thickness.1 Researchers have
reported that palmprint lines are stable features and that no two
palms have the same line patterns.2,3 This makes palmprints a can-
didate for personal identification.
No standardized method exists for palmprint identification in a
biometrics computing system. Nicolae Duta, Anil Jain, and Kanti
Mardia proposed matching based on extracted feature points
along the main palmprint lines and the associated line orienta-
tion.4 Their method simply subsamples those feature points from
the extracted line pixels. Wageeh Boles and S.Y.T. Chu applied a
Hough transform to detect straight lines of palmprints, using the
detected lines’ lengths and angles to match palms.5
Jun Chen, Changshui Zhang, and Gang Rong explored another
method using palm line features.6 In this method, palmprint match-
ing is based on creases, a kind of wrinkle on the palm’s skin. Because
projects are ongoing, and few commercial palmprint identifica-
tion systems are available. To our knowledge, only one commer-
cial system has been reportedly deployed.7 However, details on
the techniques that the system employs haven’t been disclosed,
owing to proprietary concerns.8
REFERENCES
1. D. Warren-Davis, The Hand Reveals, Element Books, 1993.
2. D. Zhang, Automated Biometrics: Technologies and Systems, Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, 2000.
3. D. Zhang and W. Shu, “Two Novel Characteristics in Palmprint Verifi-
cation: Datum Point Invariance and Line Feature Matching,” Pattern
Recognition, vol. 33, no. 4, 1999, pp. 691–702.
4. N. Duta, A.K. Jain, and K.V. Mardia, “Matching of Palmprints,” Pattern
Recognition Letters, vol. 23, no. 4, 2002, pp. 477–485.
5. W.W. Boles and S.Y.T. Chu, “Personal Identification Using Images of the
Human Palm,” Proc. IEEE TENCON ’97: Speech and Image Technologies for
Computing and Telecommunications, vol. 1, IEEE Press, 1997, pp. 295–298.
6. J. Chen, C. Zhang, and G. Rong, “Palmprint Recognition Using Crease,”
Proc. Int’l Conf. Image Processing, vol. 3, IEEE Press, 2001, pp. 234–237.

creases are less optically identifiable, crease extraction requires scan- 7. “Fujitsu Announces Global Launch of Its Contactless Palm Vein Authen-
ning a piece of paper with an ink palmprint. This requirement limits tication Technology,” press release, Fujitsu Corp., 30 June 2005; www.
this method’s practical application. fujitsu.com/global/news/pr/archives/month/2005/20050630-01.html.

These studies have shown positive results for using palmprints 8. L. Sherriff, “Japanese Banks Deploy Biometric Palm Scanners,” The Regis-
as biometric features for personal identification. Most of these ter, 27 Aug. 2004, www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/27/palm_biometrics.

the subimage. This stage involves four

steps: image preprocessing, line detection,
image thresholding, and line thinning.

Image preprocessing. Palmprint lines are

subtle features easily affected by noise
caused during image capture. Even a
minor noisy pixel might break a palmprint
line in the image. So, we apply image pre-
processing to remove the noise and make
line extraction more accurate. To do this, Palmprint subimage Result of line detection
we use a 3  3 averaging mask, which
smooths the image and minimizes the Figure 3. Line detection using a standard Sobel edge detector.
noise’s impact.

Line detection. We use suitable line detec-
tion masks for line extraction. Any stan-
dard technique, such as Sobel or Canny
edge detection, will serve. For this itera-
tion of our implementation, we’ve ap-
plied the standard Sobel edge detector
and thresholding on edge magnitude.
This step produces an image such as in
figure 3. Other standard edge detectors
should give similar results.
Image thresholding. After line detection,
each pixel’s value represents the strength
of its response to convolution of the image
with the masks. We use image threshold-
ing to convert the 8-bit image into a

OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2007 PERVASIVE computing 43

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on August 05,2010 at 02:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 SECURITY & PRIVACY
Figure 4. Thresholding palmprint lines. The two sample images are the palmprint
of the same person, captured under different lighting conditions. The number of
extracted line pixels from both samples is identical.
(a)
Figure 5. The results of (a) thinning and (b) straight-line approximation.
binary image, with white representing
pixels on the lines, and black otherwise.
The number of extracted lines depends
on the threshold value. With a high
threshold, only those pixels that respond
strongly to line detection will remain, so
the number of extracted lines will be
small. With a low threshold, we can ex-
tract more lines, because the weaker ones
are also included. Palmprint matching is
based on comparing the line segments of
two images. The same number of lines
44 PERVASIVE computing
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on August 05,2010 at 02:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
(b)
must appear in both images, or the match-
ing result might not be accurate.
Images captured in different lighting
environments have a different strength
of response to the line detection masks.
So, using a fixed threshold, or a per-
centage of the strongest response value
as a threshold, doesn’t guarantee that the
system will extract the same number of
lines from the different images.
A better approach is to calculate the
threshold value on the basis of a per-
centage of the image area. Using this
approach, we calculate the threshold
value so that the number of remaining
pixels is always 5 percent of the number
of image pixels. Because our system nor-
malizes the subimage’s size, the number
of resulting foreground pixels after
thresholding will always be the same.
Figure 4 shows two results of thresh-
olding. The two sample images are the
palmprint of the same person, captured
under different lighting conditions. The
number of extracted line pixels from
both samples is identical.
Line thinning. A morphological-thinning
algorithm processes the binary image, as
we described in the section “Boundary
extraction and edge thinning.” The re-
sulting image contains lines of only a sin-
gle pixel width. Then, we apply contour
tracing and the Dynamic Two-Strip
(DYN2S) algorithm5 to establish a set of
straight line segments that approximate
the extracted palmprint lines.
Figure 5 shows the results of thinning
and straight-line approximation. The
DYN2S algorithm generates a line edge
map that’s a more compact representa-
tion of the palmprint line segments. It
saves both storage space and the com-
putation time for feature matching.
Palmprint matching
The feature extraction stage passes the
information of the extracted line seg-
ments to the palmprint-matching stage.
This stage’s main task is to measure the
dissimilarity between the sets of line seg-
ments extracted from different images.
To do this, we apply the line segment
Hausdorff distance (LHD).6
Line segment Hausdorff distance. The
original Hausdorff distance is a shape
comparison metric based on binary
images.7 To measure dissimilarity, the
LHD also considers line orientation and
line-point association. A number of ap-
www.computer.org/pervasive

plications, such as face recognition and
logo recognition, employ the LHD.6,8
Unlike shape comparison methods that
build a one-to-one correspondence be-
tween a model and a test image, the LHD
can be calculated without explicit line
correspondence, to deal with the broken
lines due to segmentation errors.8
The LHD is based on the distance (d(m,
t)) between two line segments m and t:
d ( m, t ) =
Wa2 × dθ2 ( m, t ) + d2 ( m, t ) + d⊥2 ( m, t )
where d(m, t) is the angle distance repre-
sented by the tangent function with respect
to the smallest angle between m and t. Wa
is the predetermined weight of angle dis-
tance. d||(m, t) is the parallel displace-
ment—that is, the minimum displacement
to align either the left end points or the
right end points of m and t (see figure 6).
d is the perpendicular displacement—
that is, the distance between the two lines.
Before computing the distance, we rotate
the shorter line around its center until the
two lines become parallel.
We define the directed LHD (hs) and
undirected LHD (Hs) between two sets
of line segments M and T as
hs ( M, T ) =
( )
1 the palms of different persons) distance.
∑ lmi × min d mi , t j
∑ lmi mi∈M tj∈T
mi∈M
H s ( M, T ) =
(
max hs ( M, T ) , hs (T , M ) ) limited number of samples for testing,
where lmi is the length of line segment mi.
Hs represents the degree of dissimilarity
between the two sets of line segments.
Decision making. LHD matching pro-
duces a value (a matching score) repre-
senting the degree of dissimilarity be-
tween the model in the database and the
OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2007
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on August 05,2010 at 02:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Figure 6. The parallel-displacement
measure.
testing image. If the testing image is close
to the model, the value will be small; oth-
erwise, it will be large. We base the veri-
fication decision on the matching score,
using one of two methods.
The first method uses a fixed threshold
value. We perform LHD matching be-
tween the testing image and the model
with the desired user ID. If the matching
score is below the threshold value, we
consider the two palmprints to be from
the same person.
Or, for a single testing image, we per-
form LHD matching on all models in
the database and select the model with
the smallest matching score. If the user-
presented ID is the same as the selected
model’s user ID, the system accepts the
user.
The first method is simple and effi-
cient, because it performs LHD match-
ing only once on two images. However,
the decision’s accuracy depends on the
threshold value. If the threshold value is
too low, the false-rejection ratio will be
high; if the threshold value is too high,
the false-acceptance ratio will be high.
We can select a suitable threshold value
based on the results of testing samples.
The ideal threshold value lies above the
global maximum intrapalm (matching the
palms of the same person) distance and
below the minimum interpalm (matching
Such a threshold value would produce
100 percent verification accuracy. How-
ever, knowing these distances’ values is
impossible because we can collect only a
which produce only the local minimum
and local maximum. In addition, such an
ideal threshold value might not even exist
if the global maximum intrapalm distance
is larger than the minimum interpalm dis-
tance. In this case, verification won’t be
100 percent accurate.
The second method is similar to a
recognition method, which generally re-
quires matching operations on all mod-
m
t
l ||1 l ||2
d | | (m, t ) = min(l | | 1 , l | | 2 )
els in a database. The verification speed
depends on the database size. This
method is slower than the first but can
be more accurate. To obtain 100 per-
cent accuracy, the first method requires
that all intrapalm matching scores are
lower than all interpalm matching
scores. The second method requires only
that for each testing image, its intrapalm
matching score is lower than its inter-
palm matching scores. However, a test-
ing image’s intrapalm matching score
can be higher than another testing
image’s interpalm matching scores. If
the ideal threshold value doesn’t exist,
this method might still generate a per-
fect result because it doesn’t depend on
a global threshold value.
The choice of method depends on the
system specification. If the database is
large, the first method is preferable. If
the database is small or the system’s exe-
cution time isn’t crucial, the second
method can be considered.
Experimental results
We implemented our prototype using
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0. To test the sys-
tem’s performance, we captured 90 palm-
print images—three images each from 30
persons. We randomly selected one of the
three images to set up the database, so the
database contained 30 models. We used
the remaining 60 images as testing images
to match against the models. So, testing
involved 1,800 matching operations. Each
sample image was 380  285 pixels.
Performance analysis
The system successfully detected the
key points for all 90 images and correctly
cut out the subimages. It then compared
the line segments extracted from the
PERVASIVE computing 45
 SECURITY & PRIVACY
12
11
10
9
Matching score
8
5
4
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
Figure 7. Test results for the palmprint-matching system.
testing images with those of the models.
Figure 7 shows the matching scores.
The system matched each testing image
against the 30 models in the database,
including one intrapalm-matching model
and 29 interpalm-matching models. The
upper curve in figure 7 shows the mini-
mum interpalm matching score for each
testing image; the lower curve shows the
intrapalm matching scores. The upper
curve’s lowest value (8.91) is greater than
the lower curve’s highest value (8.22),
which means that all intrapalm matching
scores are lower than the interpalm match-
ing scores. For the sample testing images,
100 percent accurate identification is pos-
sible if the threshold value is between the
two boundary points. However, the dis-
tance between those points is small, and
selecting a suitable threshold isn’t easy in
practice. So, in general, using a predeter-
mined threshold value to make verifica-
tion decisions might generate errors.
We don’t report the accuracy of veri-
fication using a threshold value here
because it depends on the selected value.
The second verification method (des-
46 PERVASIVE computing
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on August 05,2010 at 02:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8.91
Minimum interpalm distance
Intrapalm distance
Test image ID
cribed in the section “Decision making”)
produced 100 percent accurate identifi-
cation because for each testing image,
the intrapalm distance was smaller than
the corresponding minimum interpalm
distance. The average interpalm distance
was 10.1, which is approximately twice
the average intrapalm distance (5.9).
These results show that the LHD can
effectively distinguish between interpalm
matches and intrapalm matches.
Comparison with fingerprint
technology
To gauge our approach’s effectiveness,
we performed additional tests to com-
pare it with fingerprint authentication.
We chose fingerprint recognition be-
cause it’s the most mature and produces
false-rejection (FR) and false-acceptance
(FA) rates that compare favorably to
those of techniques such as voice and
face recognition.9
Our procedure essentially followed two
previous approaches.9,10 First, we cap-
tured two palmprints each from 10 users,
giving 20 different palmprint images. We
8.22
considered the 20 images independently
of each other. These images corresponded
to 20 individuals attempting to access a
computer system. So, we considered the
20 images to be 20 “registered users,” each
with his or her own computer account.
Each registered user then attempted to
access all 20 computer accounts in round-
robin fashion. This entailed 400 tests, of
which 20 should successfully gain access
and the rest should be denied.
Using this procedure, we determined the
FR and FA rates. Because a trade-off exists
between FR and FA,1,11 we quote the
ranges of their values as follows. In our
tests, FR ranged from 0 to 3.5 percent and
FA ranged from 0 to 0.5 percent. These
values compare favorably against known
data from fingerprint technology.9,11
A
s our experiments showed, the
system works well on images
with a uniform background.
We can further extended this
system to handle images with arbitrary
backgrounds, because the algorithm for
www.computer.org/pervasive

locating and aligning the palmprint is
based on line detection instead of simple
segmentation. This can make the system
more robust and suitable for security
applications with outdoor cameras.
the AUTHORS
Maylor K.H. Leung is an associate professor in Nanyang Technological University’s School of Computer
Engineering. His research interests include computer vision, pattern recognition, and image processing,
with current focuses on video surveillance, face recognition, and shape indexing. He received his PhD
in computer science from the University of Saskatchewan. Contact him at Blk. N4, #2A-32, School of
Computer Eng., Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore 639798; asmkleung@
ntu.edu.sg.
A.C.M. Fong is an associate professor in computing systems at Nanyang Technological University’s
School of Computer Engineering. His research interests include the Internet and multimedia, as well as
digital communications and software engineering. He received his PhD in electrical and electronic engi-
neering from the University of Auckland. Contact him at Blk. N4, #2A-32, School of Computer Eng.,
Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore 639798; acmfong@gmail.com.

REFERENCES
1. Y. Gao, S.C. Hui, and A.C.M. Fong, “A
MultiView Facial Analysis Technique for
Identity Authentication,” IEEE Pervasive
Computing, vol. 2, no. 1, 2003, pp. 38–45.
Siu Cheung Hui is an associate professor in the Division of Information Systems at Nanyang Technolo-
gical University’s School of Computer Engineering. His research interests include data mining, Web
mining, the Semantic Web, intelligent systems, information retrieval, intelligent tutoring systems, and
timetabling and scheduling. He received his D.Phil. in computer science from the University of Sussex.
Contact him at Blk. N4, #2A-32, School of Computer Eng., Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore
639798; asschui@ntu.edu.sg.

2. “Biometric Enrollment Errors a Problem,

but Not Fatal,” ID Newswire, 9 July 2003,
pp. 1–3; www.itl.nist.gov/iad/Articles/
7903IDNewswire.pdf. ADVERTISER INDEX
3. M. Kothavale, R. Markworth, and P. OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2007
Sandhu, “Computer Security SS3: Biomet-
ric Authentication,” 2004, www.cs.bham.
ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules03/security/ Advertiser Page Number
students/SS3/handout.
MobiQuitous 2008 14
4. R.C. Gonzalez and R.E. Woods, Digital Image
Processing, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, 2002. Advertising Personnel
Marion Delaney Marian Anderson Sandy Brown
5. M.K. Leung and Y.H. Yang, “Dynamic IEEE Media, Advertising Coordinator IEEE Computer Society,
Two-Strip Algorithm in Curve Fitting,” Pat- Advertising Director Phone: +1 714 821 8380 Business Development Manager
tern Recognition, vol. 23, nos. 1–2, 1990, Phone: +1 415 863 4717 Fax: +1 714 821 4010 Phone: +1 714 821 8380
pp. 69–79. Email: md.ieeemedia@ieee.org Email: manderson@ Fax: +1 714 821 4010
computer.org Email: sb.ieeemedia@ieee.org
6. Y. Gao and M.K. Leung, “Face Recognition
Using Line Edge Map,” IEEE Trans. Pat-
Advertising Sales Representatives
tern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol.
24, no. 6, 2002, pp. 764–779. Mid Atlantic (product/recruitment) Northwest (product) Southeast (recruitment)
Dawn Becker Lori Kehoe Thomas M. Flynn
Phone: +1 732 772 0160 Phone: +1 650 458 3051 Phone: +1 770 645 2944
7. W.J. Rucklidge, “Efficiently Locating Ob- Fax: +1 732 772 0164 Fax: +1 650 458 3052 Fax: +1 770 993 4423
jects Using the Hausdorff Distance,” Int’l Email: db.ieeemedia@ieee.org Email: l.kehoe@ieee.org Email: flynntom@mindspring.com
J. Computer Vision, vol. 24, no. 3, 1997,
New England (product) Southern CA (product) Midwest/Southwest (recruitment)
pp. 251–270. Jody Estabrook Marshall Rubin Darcy Giovingo
Phone: +1 978 244 0192 Phone: +1 818 888 2407 Phone: +1 847 498-4520
8. C. Du, G. Su, and X. Lin, “Face Recogni- Fax: +1 978 244 0103 Fax: +1 818 888 4907 Fax: +1 847 498-5911
tion Using a Modified Line Segment Haus- Email: je.ieeemedia@ieee.org Email: mr.ieeemedia@ieee.org Email: dg.ieeemedia@ieee.org
dorff Distance,” Proc. 2003 Int’l Conf. New England (recruitment) Northwest/Southern CA (recruit- Southeast (product)
Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 5, John Restchack ment) Bill Holland
IEEE Press, 2003, pp. 3016–3021. Phone: +1 212 419 7578 Tim Matteson Phone: +1 770 435 6549
Fax: +1 212 419 7589 Phone: +1 310 836 4064 Fax: +1 770 435 0243
Email: j.restchack@ieee.org Fax: +1 310 836 4067 Email: hollandwfh@yahoo.com
9. P.J. Phillips et al., “An Introduction to Eval- Email: tm.ieeemedia@ieee.org
uating Biometric Systems,” Computer, vol. Connecticut (product) Japan (recruitment)
33, no. 2, 2000, pp. 56–63. Stan Greenfield Midwest (product) Tim Matteson
Phone: +1 203 938 2418 Dave Jones Phone: +1 310 836 4064
Fax: +1 203 938 3211 Phone: +1 708 442 5633 Fax: +1 310 836 4067
10. C.L. Wilson and R.M. McCabe, Simple Test Email: greenco@optonline.net Fax: +1 708 442 7620 Email: tm.ieeemedia@ieee.org
Procedure for Image-Based Biometric Ver- Email: dj.ieeemedia@ieee.org
Southwest (product) Will Hamilton Europe (product)
ification Systems, tech. report NISTIR 6336, Steve Loerch Phone: +1 269 381 2156 Hilary Turnbull
Nat’l Inst. Standards and Technology, 1999. Phone: +1 847 498 4520 Fax: +1 269 381 2556 Phone: +44 1875 825700
Fax: +1 847 498 5911 Email: wh.ieeemedia@ieee.org Fax: +44 1875 825701
11. V. Matyas Jr. and Z. Riha, “Toward Reli- Email: Joe DiNardo Email: impress@impressmedia.com
steve@didierandbroderick.com Phone: +1 440 248 2456
able User Authentication through Biomet- Fax: +1 440 248 2594
rics,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 1, no. Email: jd.ieeemedia@ieee.org
3, 2003, pp. 45–49.

OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2007 PERVASIVE computing 47

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on August 05,2010 at 02:42:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.